tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 22, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
the obama administration and the midterm elections. later a representative from the urban institut talks about the changing demographics of the united states. this is "washington journal." . . host: in the senate and house today, they continue their work on financial reform. there is also a committee meeting looking into our role in afghanistan -- and the report
out -- the u.s. indirectly paid warlords. there is an article in the newspaper about how money is peing funneled in afghanistan. here are the phone lines. we are also online at c- span.org. and you can find us on twitter at twitter.com/cspanwj and here is this story in "the washington post." the u.s. is funding a massive protection racket in afghanistan, and directly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords. the security arrangements are part of a $2.16 billion
transport contract and violate laws on the use of private contractors as well as a defense department regulations. military officials on the ground are focused on getting supplies were needed, and have virtually no addition of health security is actually provided for the convoys that transport goods throughout the country. a democrat from massachusetts says the findings of this report range from severing too shocking. he wrote that in introduction to the report. so, that is what we will talk about during this first segment.
we're wondering what you think about that? is it a necessary part of war? does it just happened in afghanistan to increase security there? we will learn more about the report throughout the day. congressman tierney is part of the committee on house oversight and reform. he said in an interview on monday that he hopes to report will help members of congress to the analyst with the they think this is the most effective way to go about dealing with terrorism, or the most effectively. the report's conclusiins will be introduced at a hearing today in which officials are scheduled to testify. the lawmaker will not comment,
represent give fleet from arizona, until he has seen the entire report. looking at how the of the papers are covering this issue. here is one concerning the taliban taking u.s. funds. the trucking contractors say they pay as much as $150 -- $150,000 per month to warlords in protection money. let's go to the phones and hear from michael on the democrats' line, in queens, new york. caller: good morning. i have a quick question.
can you explain to me why this is the first time that i have gotten through on c-span? every time you see the party lines, why is it that republicans are always on the top line? host: well, do not hang up yet. we do change that up so that republicans or democrats are not given preference. we change it periodically so that one is at the top compared to the other. do you have any comment on this news that the u.s. is indirectly paying the afghanistan war lords? caller:, i am an obama supporter. there is not much that i know much about it right now. but my comment, that is what i was calling about. i guess you are right. host: it is not topic-dependent, but we just changed it periodically out of fairness. let's go to john in lancaster,
pennsylvania. caller: yes, this is why we pay $4 per gallon for gas. it is for the troops in afghanistan. we are bribing people not to kill us. it is a continuation of the way the u.s. works -- we are as corrupt as possible. the cia, blackwater, other private contractors are given this money and they in turn give it to the warlords. you can bet that they are hanging onto some of that money themselves. we are just unbelievably corrupt -- is more than bad. host: what is a different model? how can things be changed in afghanistan? caller: turn around and go to the east, or to the west -- come back home, get the troops out.
get them out of afghanistan, pakistan, iraq -- get them out of all the bases we have all over the world. it is the most misguided policy i can imagine. host: bringing it back to this story, the report describes a system in which subcontractors charge between $1,500 up to $15 project to supply guides and help secure safe passage through territory they control. let's go to vivian on the democrats' line from memphis, tennessee. caller: our government is
dealing in illegal things over there. that money they are using in afghanistan to pay this what could be used right here to save these people unemployment and create jobs, manufacturing jobs for working people. our government needs to come out of afghanistan, like the previous caller said. people are suffering right here and here they are paying or lord's money? america, wake up. we need to revolt against our own government. host: looking at other news from afghanistan -- from "the financial times" -- a botched suicide bomb attack. richard holbrooke arrived yesterday to assess progress in the key phase in the campaign against the taliban. we will go to fairfax, va., with
trevor on the independent line. caller: hello, are you there? i was going to say that is pretty disturbing news. it is probably part of the way that you have to conduct war as a nation to get things done. but i would appreciate it if the government would tell me the truth of why we are over there, rather than just telling us their case in the taliban or osama bin laden. i could except the facts of were much more readily. that is pretty much all that i have to say. -- i could accept the facts under the circumstances. host: craig, democrat from las vegas, nevada. caller: yes, i would like to see
the people of the u.s. step forward. what we tell the senators, until you pass unemployment extensions, we cut your pay. you get no pay. let them live on $200 per week in food stamps. let them do that for about one month, and then they will know how we feel. instead of wasting $900 apiece. start doing stuff for our people and forget the rest of the world. get out of these wars and quit wasting money. host: let's look at other news in the headlines, from "the wall street journal" bomber pleads guilty in plot. this is looking at the event yesterday. a pakistani-born citizen calling himself a muslim soldier admitted on monday he tried to detonate a crudely made car bomb in times square in may.
shahzad pleaded guilty in federal court in manhattan to attend-count indictment that included charges of conspiracy among others. he faces life in prison. he is one of the number of homegrown terrorists who have surfaced. it poses greater difficulty to track then other foreign-born suspects. also, news from the supreme court. we will talk soon about financial negotiations, what is going on in congress on the hill as the house and senate committees work on him not regulatory reform. let's go to francis in pine hearst. caller: this has been going on for many years. it is not new. i also feel if we have to pay war lords for protection, then
we should not be there. they are very correct. this has been going on for years -- it is not new. it is only coming out now. it is absolutely the wrong way to be fighting a war, when we have to pay people to be on our side, the we should not even trust them. host: this is from sioux falls, s.d. -- good morning, eric. caller: ok, we're talking about afghanistan, and my question is -- who was running karzai's party? it seems like especially bush was funding the skies campaign. it's seems like his cousins and brothers are always in charge of illegal activities -- it seems
like especially bush was funding this guy's camping. they are making money off the route. his family has been accused of trafficking all kinds of things. why are we supporting this guy? when will we support someone else? that is my question to people. host: ok. looking back at "the washington post" article, it says the report found no direct evidence of payoffs to the taliban. one trucking manager found that about $2 million per week goes to the insurgents.
let's go to virginia, john, on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. it goes back to president eisenhower's warning -- now is the military /pharmacological/energy slashed congressional complex. they had just bought enough congressmen to keep wars going and waste resources, and line the pockets of a few at the expense of everyone else. we have to have campaign finance reform, have to get rid of the corporate suits within congress. it is the only solution. host: this is dan come on the independent line, from massachusetts. caller: thanks for having me on. i am with a lot of colors this morning -- with a lot of
callers. this is not a news story. it has been going on for quite some time. we are paying the enemy to get our supplies in there, and the same enemy is fighting us. it is crazy. i think in our country what has happened, generally, taking a broad look at it is we have put a premium on faith and a discount on facts. we think we know people in office, or who have been in office, and would not think it would do such bad things, so all these conspiracy things people business. people who have faith in these people -- it is blind faith and then they discount the facts of reporting about things that have
actually happened where the person is not telling us the truth. but all these people who have this mysterious thing called faith --no one is accountable. if everyone just has faith in things, then there is no accountability. that is where we are as a country. we put a premium on faith, and a discount on fact and truth. host: we will get back to this article concerning u.s. forces having to pay afghanistan what. now we'll talk about the ongoing discussion about financial regulation with our guest. good morning. i want to begin by reading a section from the paper -- one evening late last week the house and senate negotiators wound down another session of hammering out details of fun into regulatory overhaul.
senator dodd uttered what almost everyone else in the room was thinking. is that still the mood right now? guest: i think there's a little bit of hope as we begin this next week of negotiations, that will maybe give a little more resolution. it is very hard to get to resolution on the big items last week. going into today's conference that two big issues on the docket our consumer protection and interchange fees. yesterday an agreement was reached on this. maybe this is something that will work this week. host: how much pressure is there
to get it wrapped up this week? guest: there is not. i think the white house has been interested in getting wrapped up. president, goes to toronto this weekend to meet with g-20 leaders. this legislation, if wrapped up, would give him leverage when speaking with foreign leaders to press them to reform their own banking systems as well. host: talk to us about what happened yesterday. it sounds like they came near a deal regarding the volcker rule. guest: the volcker rule is a rule proposed by the former fed chairman, now white house adviser, paul volcker, the taliban banks from using their own money -- basically doing proprietary trading to buy and sell securities on the market purely for their own profit, not on behalf of their clients.
it has not yet been formalized, but there is a discussion about exempting firms like insurance companies and mutual funds that could secure the support of senator staff browbrown, one ofe republican senators to support the bill on the floor. it is something we will see later in the week, not today. host: you said senate negotiators have a little more power here. will it play out this week? guest: yes, i think so. the $150 billion resolution fund being proposed by the house -- to be used to -- to be paid for
by large banks, to wind down collapsing financial institutions. the senate had to drop it because the bill would not pass the senate if you include it. the house is still trying to push and include it in the final bill. chris dodd, the senate banking chairman, has already said this bill would not have gotten to the senate like that, and i cannot make it happen, basically. host: you mentioned senator brown -- who else will senator dodd appealed to? guest: susan collins is another to watch. she is the main republican. she successfully amended the senate bill last month when it was on the floor to include some tougher capital requirements for banks. and that has become a big focal point for the banking industry
to rework that amendment. there has been some back and forth among house and senate negotiators on it, but in the end, susan collins was one of the three republicans in the senate who supported the bill. you do not want to disenfranchised in need of them, because once the bill gets through conference, you will have to clear 60 votes in the senate to proceed to the final bill on the floor and to pass it. host: this is stephen sloan, staff writer with congressional quarterly at cq.com. thank you. looking at this -- tentative deal to limit debit card fees. the house and senate democrats announced a tentative agreement to impose new limits on the big card fees which would resolve the main difference between the two chambers as the race to
complete financial legislation before the fourth of july. it largely preserves the senate's language. also, and jumping over to this piece of el china's currency off the table -- the g-20 focuses on europe. looking ahead, the decision of china to allow its currency to rise gradually against the dollar has strengthened obama's hand going into the summit meeting this weekend in toronto. a little bit of other financial
news from "usa today" and its financial section. more troubled mortgage borrowers are failing out of the obama administration for closure- prevention program. our main topic now looks at the new report out, looking at how the u.s. funnels money into afghanistan, perhaps paying war lords. this is how "the wall street journal" covers it.
a six-month investigation of over $2 billion in pentagon contracts to support the u.s.- led war against the taliban from the contractors, some with close ties to the president karzai, are pretty with little or no oversight and routinely bribed local officials. this call comes on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i think there is no difference in the united states paying for safe passage of our troops and corporate america pain for safe passage of our bills. only in that context it sounds wrong when they're both wrong.
that concludes what i have to say. host: let's go to or again on the independent line -- to a oregon. caller: just like the other fellow said, it depends on who is looking at it and whose pockets they'reegetting into. there is so much distortion of where funds are supposed to be going and what funds are being used for what. i'm really astonished that no one seems to recognize that people are getting paid for doing things they know are illegal. we pay no attention to it. they are getting paid off by congress, and by everyone else. they say it is ok, you go ahead and distort and misappropriate
these funds, and it is all right because we know we will get some back. i scratch your back, you scratch mind. why is it none of this information ever seems to get to press? so that it brings aatention to the general public so that they can say something, or even act upon it? host: john, republicans line, in raleigh, north carolina. caller: i just think it is too early to draw a negative conclusion, because i think there is more positive than negative. we're heading toward the end of the year. have you seen the new demo yet? host: the topic at hand is the afghan war lords. let's go to ohio caller: i just
think this is terrible. it is bad. they're pumping money into overseas, and just like a previous caller said, this is nothing new. i want to know what the republicans will say? they are so against unemployment. it is people who are not working, if they cannot find jobs, especially in ohio -- i have been laid off for year-and- a-half and cannot find a job. they're holding up unemployment, but embezzle money overseas. host: you mentioned republicans, but does this concern you with the white house and what they're doing in afghanistan? caller: i just think it has been going on for years, and no one talks about that. they are trying to say it is a problem now, but i think they are doing it because obama is in
office. this has been going on for years. this is nothing new. host: a senior administration official said "i think it is much too early to draw a negative conclusion." next up is a joke, on the independent line, and when york. caller: good morning. i do not wherknow where to starr to end. it is very upsetting. i am upset that c-span and the media have nnt informed us about blackwater, and halliburton, and who they really are and where the tentacles go. a funny thing happened here on long island that shows you where the station is headed. i read somewhere that grummond,
a big contractor here, helped to build the space shuttle. they just received a huge contract to build these huge bllimps that will be flying over afghanistan and pakistan. much like the drones, but from a different altitude. they will not be ready for two years. the blooms will not be ready for another two years. so, if you think your sons and daughters are coming down any time soon, if you think there are not people who want americans to stay and die, and be in the middle east, think again. host: let's look at an ap story from washington. the top u.s. commander has been summoned to washington to explain his controversial comments about colleagues in a recent interview.
the official said that general stanley mcchrystal who has since issued an apology for comments, has been directed to attend the monthly white house meeting in person on wednesday rather than over secure video teleconference, so that he can discuss his comments with president obama and top pentagon officials. the republicans line, and jacksonville, fla. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i think it is time to get
out. i do not know why we're still over there. iraq, obama has blood on his hands killing all those innocent civilians with drones. why aren't we told by the media how many of our soldiers are being killed? every month he used to give out how many were killed, but they do not do that anymore. the first caller wanted to know republicans are on top? if the caller had been watching every morning for a long time, she wwuld know every month it is changed, once per month. thank you. host: this is from houston, texas, ronnie. caller: good morning to america,
even though it seems like a sad state of affairs. judge made an excellent comment. we are talking about karzai. george bush started this mess. and there is no stopping it. karzai was crowded, we did, and wrong from the beginning. how can you get someone who is wrong and expect them to do something right? america is choking on its own vomit whether you realize it or not. these people over there talk about khan, caesar, russia, but this is a trap that ameeica is been right now. host: this article from the front page. a reminder that britain was
paying a high price for keeping our country save. kansas city, missouri, justin, an independent color. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. i think it is completely ridiculous. the first reaction -- we got into this for money, and now we're spending money and getting troops killed in general. it is ridiculous that 50 years
ago people would be marching hundreds of thousands of people protesting the war like this, and now we just have to sit back and make the dollar just to survive. it is ridiculous that people are living homeless and starving here -- what can we help them? it is blasphemy have people have gotten so used to bloodshed that we just sit back and take it. host: the paper is reporting that drug use has increased in afafghanistan. it is taking a toll on the afghan population with roughly 800,000 afghan adults now using opium and other illicit drugs. jumping down, the defense the permit has identified over 1000 american service members who have died as a result of the
afghan war. let's go to yardley, pa., rick, on the republican line. caller: the media tells us in so many ways, but they don't tell us that the taliban complete eradicated the drug use. the media do not tell us why the nine-11 happen. the cia admittedly was running heroin in the 1970's. now the war lords get all their power back and they are our guys, the north alliances. nobody really talks about this now. the cia was burning drugs in the 1970's. you do not do a $1 billion drug- running business and now say that you stopped. host: this is new orleans, louisiana.
caller: good morning. i have a comment about the war. we go there, lose our guys over there, then if they will do as they did in vietnam, they brought all the people into the war, then all the people over here, give them homes for $1, and five years of the taxes, and none of them speak english. if the foreigners are brought over or come over on their own, the first should speak our language. we should not have to learn their language. host: looking at some other news, the "new york times" has an article on energy. the nation needs a fundamental overhaul of the energy policies. most expect alternative forms to
those gulf coast residents whose committees are most affected and whose livelihood have been linked to oil for generations are more likely than americans overall to say they're confident those affected by this bill will be fairly compensated. baltimore, md., on the independent line. caller: thank you. i did have something on afghanistan, but i will talk about the economy. i would not mind paying $4 and change for ethanol, if that is what we could do. we really need to get off of an oil-based economy. that is the only way that we
will not be in crisis again. this oil spill should be a lesson enough. we do not have the knowledge to clean up the spill. we have a six-month moratorium on drilling. people are saying there are jobs lost and we cannot afford to stop drilling. i rather stop it and be safe, and know that if another spill happens that we have the facilities to clean it up. we obviously do not. this the peekskill -- people did not realize is they're sitting at home watching the tv how big this spill really is. host: looking at our news,
afghanistan. it was not bush who chose to shift the attention to afghanistan. now he has to stay and find osama bin laden, regardless of the general there. he had a strategy of going to afghanistan. it was his strategy, not that bush. host: are you concerned about the new congressional report concerning money funneled to afghan warlord stocks caller: no, there probably is something going on. but the president has a strategy to find osama bin laden. he will either find him, or host: not ok, chucnot. host: chuck, what do you think?
caller: frankly, i on't think it is the problem in afghanistan. the fact is afghanistan produces some 85% of the global heroin. they have years' worth of harvests and we're finding heroin in these cases. they run up into the eurasian markets and russia. a son of a leader is seeking refuge in london. we have native troops who are obviously participating in the drug traffic there. host: this paper reports in all $14 billion in local contracts were reported.
the host nation contract which is roughly 70% of all goods and materials sent to the u.s. troops through aid contractors. one of the largest was founded in 2005 by the son of afghanistan's defense minister. crystal river, fla., on the independent line. toni. caller: good morning. i'm calling because this corruption in the united states has been going on for over 60 years. i blame the majority of it on george h. w. bush. he is the only person i know in my lifetime who has been involved in every agency -- the
cia, the fbi. his corruption has extended to the pentagon, the private sector with the oil businesses, with all the big corporations, ge, and others. the republicans claim that ronald reagan, the great communicator -- that was the best acting job he ever did as far as i'm concerned. as for george bush, jr., he was a thumb tack president. his father put him into office and his father's cronies' ran it. host: what do you think the president obama should do now? caller: well, what can he do? the corruption is so imbedded. george bush, a senior was involved with bringing drugs into the country. he was accused of it and then they all watched it to. the nixon administration -- the public outcry against nixon got him to resign. there is no more public outcry.
>> if you cannot make up your mind based on what you have read, what you have heard, on your impressions and answers, then you do not deserve to be on the committee. >> take a look back at her speeches. and what senators say about this confirmation hearing. the video library available on line with every program since 1987. "washington journal" continues. host: thanks for joining us, bob cusack. guest: good morning. host: talking about the race is happening around the country, runoffs, contests, give us a preview. guest: another incumbent in congress from south carolina is in trouble. it looks like he will lose. he is down in the polls against
the tea party favorite. with engles, some believe he strayed from the party, having criticized joe wilson, and voted with democrats. on energy policy he has strayed from the party. he was one of the few republicans to disapprove of the surge in iraq. he was in a runoff, but his opponent got more votes. so, enlrd looks to be in trouble. then we got a big runoff in utah. it is the seat that senator bennett now holds. he did not make it into the run up. whoever wins will be your next
senator because utah is reddest state in the nation. bennett endorsed bridgewater. it will be a tight race. according to the polls, bridgewater was in the lead. host: has there been a resurgence in popularity or interest in what bennett has to say? guest: no, he is upset he lost. he says whoever wins will not have much clout in washington. this will truly be a freshman senator without the clout that bennett did, but it is not one of the endorsements that bridgewater is talouting.
host: this concerns the runoff in south carolina. an african-american two-party conservative is running against the son of one time segregationist strom thurmond. tell us about the ccntest and what may happen? guest: this guy came from nowhere, and all of a sudden has a ton of momentum. he is doing surprisingly well committed to the run-up. thurmond has all the momentum, and will likely win -- he might be the best shot the republicans have to have an african-american in the congress in eight years. both eric cantor and another have backed him.
he is the tea party favorite. sarah palin has backed him. this is the seat for henry brown who is retiring. whoever emerges from this will be the favorite. host: also, the gubernatorial runoff in south carolina. haley is expected to do well because she had such a high advantage with 49% in the initial primary battle. who is she guest: facing she is facing a member of congress, about whom there have been a number of allegations concerning haley of adulteress affairs. it has not hurt haley, though. mitt romney back to her. unless there is a major upset,
she will win. she would be favored to win in the general -- in south carolina, the favorite, unless something emerges that is very controversial. but she has withstood the punches. host: what are the other candidates for office reading from the races right now? are there certain outcomes today? certain shake ups? there are many other prairie steep into august. guest: they are nervous. the big votes that can come back to you are those for the 2008 bailout, the tarp votes, the healthcare vote -- if you did not vote and you are democrats, you have reason for concern. jim was in a runoff today and was expected to beat the retired schoolteacher. she made it into the runoff even though she had only spent a small amount compared to his
$750,000 spent. he is expected to win. even though it is a very conservative district, he voted no on health care. the republicans do not have a credible challenger. so, if you can get past this hurdlegetmatheson will likely be reelected. we saw with video cameras, the electorate is angry. most incumbents are still winning. blanche lincoln survived, but senator arlen specter lost. there is a sense of unease, and that i'd better not take this primary candidate slightly. host: does it seem like it is shaking up republicans more? guest: i think both the left and right feel emboldened right now.
anyone in the middle is very nervous, especially around primary time. come november if republicans can survive the primary challenges they have over the next few months, they will likely be safe. some people say that it will hit both parties in november. historical trends show usually when the electorate is angry they will vote against the party in power. they did against the republicans in both 2006 and 2008. host: today's top story -- dems will not pass budget. hoyer says house will spend less than limits set by obama. he will confirm it in a speech on tuesday. he will back to crack down on government spending, saying that democrats will enforce spending limits that are lower than what
the preeident called for. what is the situation when it comes to getting things done and also limiting spending? guest: of this budget decision has been hankering for weeks. six weeks ago they said they would make a decision. try to get a deal between liberals and conservatives in the democratic caucus. this is the first time since the budget rules were created in 1974 that the house will not pass a resolution. the will pass a procedure, but not resolution. republicans, when they controlled congress, had trouble passing a budget in election years. they always move it through the house, though. it may be became mired in the senate. it is a difficult issue. one year ago the democrats were riding high. the first 180 days of obama in
office they delivered their budget on the 100th day by fairly wide margins. most democrats supported the president and his budget. now it is a different mood. democrats on capitol hill are nervous about the mood of voters. they say we will cut back from what obama has proposed. democrats are trying to make sure -- telling voters that we have heard you. they are emphasizing the fiscal commission under way to come up with recommendations after elections. probably on taxes and entitlement spending. so the nation can get control of its debt. there are many doubts about whether that will get the necessary votes from the commission and congress.
host: here are the phone numbers. we are talking about congressional politics. let's go to hawaii and william. caller: good morning. it is 2:00 a.m. here in hawaii. aloha. guest: i will be there on vacation in two weeks. caller: i live under the volcano. [laughter] guest: i will not be there. caller: in this budget debate i have never heard a word yet about the cost of the military budget. we have now 177 permanent military bases in 84 countries around the world, including seven brand new, permanent bases
in the country of colombia. if they're going to deal with the overruns of the budget, when are they going to deal with this bloated, wasteful, black hole that is the military budget? guest: that is something policy makers are discussing. robert gates at the pentagon has called for trimmed down spending. barney frank has put together a group of experts to recommend major cuts in the budget. recently they came up with their condition of roughly $1 trillion to cut back that they say will not hurt defense. standing lawyer in a speech he will deliver today will say defense spending needs to be on the table. we need to look at the defense budget -- steny hoyer will say.
other tax increases or defense cuts, everything must be on the table. that is what the fiscal commission is looking at. it is made up of lawmakers. host: he says any conversation about the deficit that leaves out defense spending is seriously flawed before begin's -- that comes from hoyer. how does that play back home? everyone is not eager to seem like a fiscal hawk. one reason that the defense spending does not get cut is it brings money back, two districts where there is military infrastructure, where parts and pieces are made. guest: yes, that is right. when you start to make specific cuts to a certain base, or to medicare or medicaid, or unemployment benefits, those become campaign commercials for
the opposition. when you're dealing with the specifics, saying social security should be on the table, or medicare -- any of these popular programs, then it becomes very difficult. that is part of the reason why the nation has a record level of debt. both republicans and democrats have had a difficult time dealing with cutting spending even though both parties have tried to. host: this is edward on the republican line from rochester, new york. caller: i am an african- american conservative republican. what bothers me is i do not see the media holding barack obama's feet to the fire. he said if you give him $797 billion, that he would be able to keep unemployment down to 7.5%. it is almost at 10%.
there are politics being played with khalid sheik mohammaed -- who's a trial will not happen. one has just come not saying that politics have just had a static vote. they have just had rahm emanuel on tv trying to play politics. they always seem to want to target someone. . they're not being held accountable. . .
very upset at the nra, because they felt they had the votes to block it. last week -- in the senate, there is no republican co- sponsor. they need at least one. there is no indication of -- it is going to be a difficult left in the senate, because it has been difficult in the house. the u.s. chamber of commerce, if you look at their endorsements over the years, they do support business friendly democrats. if you vote for this bill, and take away our freedoms, to put out commercials and the first amendment rights, we may not endorse you. that is a powerful message.
host: dayton, ohio. caller: your opinion is just like our opinion. when it comes to the republicans, the they are not doing their job. they are not doing their job for the people. they do not want to see the president succeed. when you sit up there and say they need to sign the check, they do not need to sign the vote. they need to work with the president. we can see that. you cannot see that, because you are spreading out certain things. go to capitol hill and deliver this message, work with the president and stop working against him. host: a rocky week in a rise
back up as he handled the oii spill situation. guest: they see him as the party's leader. some democrats do not want him in their district or their state. we interviewed blanche lincoln. he helped deliver her a big win. that was bill clinton. michelle obama has been on the campaign trail. some democrats did not want him. he is not popular in their district. a democrat who was a former aide of john murtha said he voted against health care reform. he has shunned the policies of obama and grant a local mantra and said he can deliver for the district as did another with
many air march, and he won. -- earmarks, and he won. host: north carolina. caller: i enjoy the show. i want to thank the callers before me. we seem to be collected in one point. president obama cannot be the president of everybody. that are just not going to work with him. they want him to fail. i even feel like if they could sign something to impeach him with, they will. what did the former bush do. we have a war that is really, really senseless. everybody is just going along and saying, we need to keep -- we need to keep the kids of
there and keep letting them get killed, for what? what's happened to the money that they were supposed to build their own country back? >> a lot of the voters will blame president george w. bush for the policies and the warsaw, the deficit. republicans on capitol hill are laughing that off. they know that george w. bush will be mentioned on the campaign trail in a lot this year. it is questionable if that is going to work. some democrats say they will not use that message as much as they did before. host: this is from the hill. tell us more. guest: this is a bit of a split among republicans.
among the right, you have so much pressure from conservatives to cut back spending in do things differently than when of republicans ran congrees and the white house when spending skyrocketed and they passed the medicare drug benefit. other things that did not please the base. in some republicans saying, let us stop these unemployment benefits beyond the 26 weeks, that are customary. congressional leaders, while using that as ammunition on the campaign trail are saying let's extend the benefits but offset them. democrats are paying for other parts of the extended bill, they're saying that does not need to be paid for. it is a bit of an issue for republican leaders were they have admitted that. we should be fiscally
conservative. the definition of that is different for different people. host: republican, new castle, pa.. caller: when i hear people calling in going on and on about president bush, i have to wonder if they ever do their homework. the democrats have been in charge in washington for over 3.5 years. that is when all of this hogwash started. did anyone say, poor mr. obama when he walked through the doors has to face all of this. come on. he knew what he was getting into. he went around the country promising things and has delivered nothing but a nun -- but a bunch of nonsense. guest: this is the debate throughout the summer and the fall. who is to blame.
there is a lot of finger- pointing. whether it is democrats, republicans, liberals. democrats have large majooities on capitol hill. been some will miss these majorities next year. they are having difficulties moving bills. they will pass financial regulatory reform in all likelihood. in between, they have had a rough patch. the war supplemental has been delayed. the tax extender bill as well. harry reid says we have worked on this for a couple of months and still cannot get to the votes. host: what has to happen for the democrats to go home and say they have had a successful year? guest: this congress has done a lot.
you can argue against a lot of what they have done, but they have done some historic legislation. the signature is health care reform. it did not look like it was going to pass. , but it did. that gave them momentum. it has moved financial regulatory reform through the senate. nancy pelosi wants to get climate change done. some democrats have been pushing for immigration reform. there is a bit of fatigue on capitol hill. some democrats say they have done enough to make the case back home. it will be difficult because of historical trends. but this congress has done a lot. when there is some concern about doing more. they have done enough, let us not take any more tough votes.
host: georgia. caller: thanks for taking my call. i had a comment and a question. it is about a primary that we had a few weeks ago. the person that one was a man that no one had heard of. they asked him -- i heard too much about him. i was wondering if they can follow up on that. there really is not a lot of difference between the republicans and democrats. bush had a war in iraq, and
obama has won in afghanistan. in my mind, they have been pretty much the same. thank you. guest: the caller is referencing ellen greene actions south carolina. -- alvin green in south carolina. few had heard of him before, and he was not favored to win. some were thinking about challenging the primary results. he is a democratic nominee. the question is, how did he get this money? they had one of the mostt remarkable political stories i
have seen. certainly, the democrats say it is a republican plans, and the republicans say it is absurd. whoever he is going to face in november, jim dewitt is likely to win. it is a fascinating story. host: democrats line. caller: i got laid off in in 2007. i worked at -- so many places, everything is gone. there is nothing here. they do not want to give me an
extension. i was working. there are so many people here looking for work, but there is nothing here. what about us that have not had anything in about five months? i think i would work if there is something to do. there is nothing really to do. guest: this is going back to the unemployment issue. there is debate among republicans and democrats. if you extend unemployment benefits, there is a
disincentive for them to find work. many say it is hogwash. if you are getting unemplooment, you are still losing your house. it is not a big check. host: we got a look at the plan calendar of the house. they will spend another week back in their home districts, not in washington. a shortened work. . what does that mean? what does it mean for them heading back home? do democrats need to get back and start campaigning? guest: yes and no. they will not be having as many town hall format. they want to be home in campaigning.
they do not want to create moments summers ago where there were heated town halls. i think it will be interesting. they will be home. they will use that as campaign ammunition. there are tax provisions in this tax extender bill. democrats need to make a decision on what of the bush tax cuts are they going to extend? if they pass anything as far as what people are making, then it reverts back to the pre-bush tax cuts. that is a huge decision democrats have. some think they will have to make that decision. that is one to watch.
they will have to say, do you agree with president obama that people that make over $250,000 and above should have their taxes increase, but not for those below that level. some in the senate feel the number should be higher. that is the debate. host: republican, in michigan. caller: i was calling to reflect back and look at the present. when ronald reagan took office, the stock market started to move in prices got cheaper. with obama in office, it seems that when the stock market is higher, so do the prices.
nothing gets cheaper. everything gets more expensive. is that related to the fact that we have such a small, young tax paying base than when we did in the past. so security is in danger with that. guest: i am not sure about the inflation rates. there has been fear of hyper inflation kicking in. it has not yet. that is something that economists are constantly watching. i am not so sure that the rate has gone up so much. host: this is from the campaign section. guest: it is a marked
difference. when is the last time the republican base has been fired up? you probably have to go back to two dozen for when george bush beat john kerry. since then, the party has been in the doldrums. the dealing of katrina was a disaster. they suffered in the polls. you see these numbers, but democrats want a special election. we will see what happens. republicans think they have a good shot of taking back the house and picking up seven seats. host: independent line, texas. caller: i am an independent now,
but what change of mind on republican -- when they voted on terry shaiva. she was not taken off life support. she was starved to death. the judge repeated the 10 commandments. that affected me a whole lot. i am no longer republican. host: what may we see in the battle over elena kagan? how significant is this going to be as we watch her confirmation process? guest: the oil spill is the biggest problem of the obama administration. kagan is a boring story, because there has not been a lot
of conflict. i am sure she will get some yes votes. most -- the hearing starts next week. there will be a lot of pomp and circumstance. opening statements on monday. in a give-and-take. there will be some trauma there. the white house believes they are in pretty good shape on that nomination. it is looking pretty strong right now. host: queens, new york, democratic caller. caller: the medicare that obama pass, will the veterans get the figure as well? guest: i believe so. if you fall into the medicare don't get, which is an absence of coverage, up to a certain
amount, you get a $250 rebate. that would include all medicare beneficiaries as far as i know. you should check with your local office. host: pennsylvania. caller: i think the main problem with obama is that he has not followed the priorities of the american people. they were fix the economy and create jobs and take care of the oil spill. with regards to the economy, the stimulus money was assigned to energy and health care issues. recently, barbara boxer said --
and regarding the energy bill, the basic priority is to take care of this bill. i imagine she was speaking about the payments. this man is not focusing on the priorities that americans have. i thought the promise by jonathan alter -- in both the book and on television, he says almost everybody in the obama it ministration does not want the health care bill passed in the first couple of years. that included joe biden, christina romer. in the book that was written, they wanted it passed beyond the first couple of years. host: let's get a response.
guest: i have not read the book. there is some reticence to health care reform. that is true. joe biden was concerned about moving healthcare right after the stimulus. these are big debates that we will see on the campaign trail. we s democratic candidates for congress, would you vote for the bill? most of them would not get back to us. there was a concern at the time if this is a political winner or loser. it depends on the district or the state. that is going to be a factor. we have seen democrats openly say they are opposed to it. they are walking a fine line. will obama go to their states this fall that they have voted against his number-one priority. host: how realistic is the
climate change pushed right now? guest: democrats in many ways are having the meetings. they have presentations of various climate change proposals. this is something that nancy pelosi has as a signature issue. the votes are nowhere near in the senate. that is coming from democrats who say there is no way to get to 60 votes. some do not want to have another big chicken on a bill moves that would raise consumer rates. republicans want to have the debate. host: louisville, kentucky, independent line. caller: has anybody heard about
them extending unemployment benefits of all? i have been working since i was 19 years old and never lost my job or been out of work up until this year. all of the sudden, without any warning, they cut the benefits here in indiana. i live right on the border of kentucky and indiana. has anybody heard or considered this? guest: we get a lot of phone calls a similar to that. what is the status of the unemployment benefits? you see a lot of people in the country concerned about that and frustrated when congress is deadlocked and they did not commit their unemployment benefits. it is a top priority for congressional leaders. at various times, democrats wanted to extend it further. it is something that the senate and the house is working on.
it is part of a larger bill this week part of some controversial things. it could get done this week. how long? it remains to be seen. host: does the american public call them responsible for not moving this forward? guest: democrats are making the point as well as speaker closing -- nancy pelosi same republicans are the ones blocking this. it is also noteworthy that senator joe lieberman and ben nelson from nebraska voted against the measure that had this. the entire package should be paid for. you have this benefit versus fiscal concern that is clashing. a lot of finger-pointing. host: democrat, dallas, texas.
caller: i am calling in regards to some against president obama. from day one up to the presence t [unintelligible] the republicans stood up and said we are not going to let anything pass. i have never seen any democrat and as many caucasian people on the right to hate this man as much as anybody has ever hated somebody. i am a 62 year-old disabled vietnam veteran. that makes me feel really bad to be an american. i fought for this country. and they are going to treat a black man like that?
guest: this is part of the reason why the conservative base -- the right was not fond of president bush. some on the left have been disappointed by president obama. various issues, they have been disappointed. overall, many are saying, give him a break. he has done a lot for what was on his agenda. he has accomplished most of it. he has more to do. republicans believe the government spending has helped them tremendously. they will try to get one chamber back this fall. joe biden said a while back that it is the end of the road for that .icans will tout fel
host: thanks for joining us. here is a news update. >> it is a cloth 30-year in washington, d.c. -- 8:30 in washington, d.c. are things that the obama administration could implement today that could get the zero and mr. back to work without a six month time limit. the head of libya's national oil corp. says he is happy for bp to continue to operate in his country's territorial waters despite the oil spill. the oil minister said it the spill is a tragedy, but it is exaggerated in a way. bps signed a deal with the --
bp is signed a deal with that company. and one person must explain his controversial comments about some colleagues. he said that general stamina crystal had been instructed -- stanly mcchrystal had been instructed to its plan his comments. and europeans plan to spend more than last year on summer holidays. there to travel plans however have been weighed by the financial situation many plan to take one holiday trip this summer.
those are some of the latest+ headlines on c-span radio. >> several events to tell you about today. the treasury secretary will speak at an oversight of the tarp program. we are covering some live events on c-span3. and that the u.s. policy toward iran hearing will be held. and financial regulations bill work will begin at 9:00 eastern curtain hos. host: tucker calls and has founded this publication.
guest: we have a bunch of reporters. we are based here. recover government first and foremost. we have sections on crime, sports, entertainment, health. everything. really, we cover politics. host: what are you doiig that is different? guest: many locations recycle news from other sources. there is nothing wrong with that. but there is a need for original reporting. newspapers are the basic source.
there are fewer reporters in there then five years ago. there is a need for more people going out and asking questions and providing primary news coverage. there is not enough of that. host: a recent poll was done with cbs. it was done by the "new york times." there are more concerned about jobs than the nation's economy. guest: not just higher gas prices but also higher energy prices. they do not want to see traffic costs rise.
people will revolt if it changes. i think people are unduly optimistic about the time frame for switching over to fossil fuels to something new, what ever is next. there is a lot of energy domestically still left in this country. it may be a while before we see a resolution. host: what would that tell you about this direction? guest: [unintelligible] there are very wary of any energy legislation that will affect consumers directly. almost all that i have seen what appeared there are plenty of examples of what happens when
people see their energy costs rise. people pay a lot of taxes anyway in this country. in some ways, they are unseen. if your gas bill strikes -- spikes, people do not care for that at all. host: what are you watching in the primary election season? the role of the tea party in the pongressional races. what are you reading from the is?cks gues guest: we are trying to figure out what the tea party means like many others. it is filtered through the lens. there is no leadership.
this is pretty near russian at focus. i expect them to fragment may be more than they have to see various parties take of various causes. the movement seems focused nearly on government spending. if they keep the focus there, they have a chance of affecting midterm elections and the presidential election a couple of years from now. host: independent line, wisconsin. caller: of like the speaker to draw a correlation between bp being private sector, we are going to charge them for everything gone wrong. if you got your shoes dirty from oil, they should pay for new issues. banking is also a private sector. people have lost their homes and
jobs. rebuild the punt and give everybody who lost their jobs money from the government. -- we bailed them out and gave everybody lost their jobs money from the government. guest: am not sure i follow the comparison. the expectation that americans have that the government will step in the worst-case scenario and make everything all right. in the end, the government should use money as the last result. i am not criticizing the expectation, but in some cases, it is unrealistic. that is beyond the capability of federal government. i think that as a shock for a
lot of people. there are some things that they cannot do. people have been raised on high expectations of what the government can do. host: what is your reaction to one person's comments last week about the white house shaking down bp? guest: the question is if it is a good thing are not. they did shake them down. it is completely valid to find that disturbing. you can still be anxious about the precedent set when the administration sits down with any private citizen giving money or anything else. on principle, barton made a good point. it was unacceptable politically.
his party immediately abandon him. there have been conflict between him and the leadership of this party. they ran away from him for it i would like to see somebody stand up and say, he makes an important point. but stand on principle. host: republiian, for lauderdale, florida. caller: thanks for having my call this morning. c-span is great. for obama, the democrats are for the environment, and yet we have an oil spill.
he voted against the war in iraq. how would you estimate all of these problems we're having in our country and yet we cannot find the solution to the problem? guest: that is a compound question. i am not sure i can answer every element of it. there is some irony on the surface. saying this as a fervent obama person. if you drive a car -- we all need oil. there is no use lying about that.
it does seem a little unfair blame a politician for something he did not do. america's problems seem to be adding up. there is a 1978 feel when talking to people about the country being on the wrong track. host: tallis that playing out of the polls -- how is that playing out in the polls? guest: the democrats are the party in power and are getting spanked. democrats may feel a test. many will lose -- the moderate democrats. it will become much more left wing after the selection.
it is inevitable. just because the democrats are week does not necessarily mean the republicans are strong. host: what would be a sign that republicans cannot cash in on this? what would a failure by the republicans? guest: marginal races are the first measure. certain ones, you know what is going to happen. the incumbent party is going to get hurt. some feats which were tossups the will revert to republican seat. the races you look at to see if there is a broader alignment going on of those for the california senate race. barbara boxer was elected last time.
she received more votes than any senate canada -- canada it in american history. -- candidate in american history. she is pretty tough to beat. look at what is the republican message. what do republicans stand for? they have to sell what. host: democrats line, texas. caller: i am a fervent barack obama supporter. some mainstream journalists -- one said he felt obama was not political enough. another said he does not
believe obama does things for political reasons. guest: i knew both of the men that you are speaking about. i do not know if you are quoting them correctly. this is an enormously political administration. it is something you can defend. it is politics after all. [unintelligible] host: peter orszag will be leaving this administration. what does that mean? there are reports regarding how
long rahm emanuel may last. guest: [unintelligible] as for the rahm emanuel question, it is amazing the degree to which the story always becomes about him. in the inauguration of bill clinton, i was here. rahm emanuel had his own car with his own name on the side in the parade. i am not criticizing him. that is impressive. it is very bold.
he instinctively calls attention to himself. it is amazing he can get away with that. his job is to serve the president. he is a servant. yet he is on the front page of politico today. you wonder if the president looking back thinks this is a wise choice to pick someone who would divert the attention to himself. he has been saying this for quite some time. he has made it very clear through the press where reporters go out of his way to keep those ties. he is a great source for workers. he is liked by a lot of reporters. he lost his middle finger in a
meet slicing incident when he was 12. the president said he would meet at that time. if i were the president, i would call rahm emanuel in my office and say shut up. they have not done that. host: is this the first wave we will see people leaving after the midterm elections? guest: it is a little odd. people will read a lot into it announcing it now. it is possible that this is a personal decision. he is getting married and has some complicated personal things going on. that could be what is behind this. host: new jersey, independent
line. caller: i think the president is totally incompetent on some a levels, especially with the oil spill. when one of these senators commented on the shakedown of bp, to help people with any damages of the oil spill, it reminded me of katrina funds set up any money since ever reach the people harmed by the disaster. it seems to me -- i can understand why the congressman said it was a shakedown -- like the trailers that never got
used. monies were never disbursed to the people injured. it does not make sense to set of this fund when there is nobody to give it to or direct the money to as to when we are going to fix things. guest: it was a shakedown. there was a gun on the table during the negotiations. metaphorically. the idea i think was let's get this money. we know bp will have to come up with it. that put it in a lock box. it is not a crazy idea. there was an enormous amount of waste in response to katrina. leave feeling was this is a terrible tragedy. if we did not spend enough
money, everything would be fun. that was the idea. not enough people cared to take a close look at how the money is being spent. in this case, we hope that the overwhelming majority of the money going to compensate the people affected by it will be private money from bp. and that is not a is -- not as great a concern as people looking out for public money. host: you are talking about bp being strong armed into this. should it go through the court system or corporate responsibility-guest: i doubt bp would step up on its own current i think it is important
to obey the law. if it needs to go through the courts, that is how we decide things. it is time-consuming and frustrating. the results produced and not always the ones we would want. you kind of have to do that. host: some senators say their knees to be some accountability for bp. the court system to not serve the exxon valdez. guest: the courts did not serve the family of nicole some some well either. -- simpson either. host: republican line, michigan.
caller: of want to speak to you as a journalist. before you came on, there was a gentleman that stated that republican conservatives hate barack obama. why do you think that is? i do not hate him, i just as like his policies. guest: i do not take him at all. i find him charming. i agree completely. i am not into hating people. i think he has been a very ideological, left wing president. people who do not agree with him would be frustrated by the things he is doing.
you have to recognize the scope of his ambition, which is amazing. overhauling health care, energy, education. there is no part of american life that this administration has sought sought to exert greater control over. it is either great or terrifying, depending on your point of view. the has promised to be a united not a divider and has ended up doing the opposite. to be totally blunt with you, i find less disingenuous than others. host: democrats line, eleanor.
-- illinois. caller: i have a comment relevant. you will hear -- i like your comment on this. he will hear more about the .udge's and activists for people not familiar with that, the constitution means what it says literally. hypocrisy -- the problem is not that there is a problem with it itself. i would like you to comment on
one example. one woman says she is looking forward to mixing up the senate and expanding a role. you can argue that is legitimate. that is a very liberal interpretation of the constitution. we know that the people that wrote the constitution, we know what they thought the role of a vice president was. we have the letters of john adams talking about how they would not let him talk unless it was with [unintelligible] the tea party love her. she wants to do something extremely different than what the founders sought a role as being. guest: i have not heard or
consider that point. the obvious observation is that government has changed quite a bit in america since the original documents were drafted. that is an interesting point. i am not exactly sure what claims were made that you're referring to. as a general matter, there are very few people on either side who have internalized the idea of restraint in government. i do not think the left as even entertained the idea of restraining their appetites once in power. the right does pay a lot of lip service to the idea of pulling back and letting people make their own decisions. caught very few people, once they get in a position of power let others make their decisions.
many say i am a libertarian. i agree with the idea that people should do what they want to do. what they really mean is, i want to be able to do what i want to do. what they do not mean is that other people should be allowed to do what they want to do. give people power, and they will try to prevent other people from making what they consider to be mistakes. they will not what people do things they think are wrong. what we have to fight hard to attain this. some people did not try to fight. host: here is a comment from twitter. what do you make of criticism from liberals that say the president has not lived up to what they thought he would be. they thought he would push climate change legislation earlier or harder.
guest: they are coming at me on twitter. i cannot believe that. i always have a lot of sympathy from ideologues. they are sincere. good for them. i like people like ralph nader. i am very sympathetic to that point. the truth is obama has done the bidding of the left. there are exceptions. nobody is perfect. how do you know that i am right in saying that? it is very simple. he will not be challenged from the left. if he was truly deviating from
left-wing orthodox alienating his liberal supporters, there would be a ralph nader coming at him in the primaries in 2012. there will not be. fundamentally, he satisfied the demands of the left. host: independent line, color rotor. caller: mentioned something about what happens after the tea party. .
in order to grant subsidies to an australian developer who wanted to put in a multiuse community. the tax subsidy was $90 million. the tea party managed to receive a tiny, incremental tax increase for the public libraries to stay open. four of the seven libraries were closed in the first four months. they could not come up with enough to cover their budget shortfall and their response to that was to lower firemen and
police wages. taxes will simply be diverted to the special interests for corporate subsidies and the public will lose out. >> you make a good point about australian developers. there are a lot of them. they come to this country without the knowledge or consent of many americans and develop space for shopping malls. we spend a lot of time on the border with new mexico, arizona, texas, not spending enough time spending -- attempting to stem the tide of australian developers. it is an ongoing concern for me and i am glad it was address. >> perhaps a serious note for you, looking at the biggest --
the bigger picture here, what do you see is the message coming from washington referencing what is happening in arizona? what is washington going to make of that? what does it say? >> everyone in washington is for illegal immigration. democrats are for it because the become citizens and become democratic voters 90% of the time. republicans are for it because the illegal aliens provide cheap labor. also because they are deathly afraid because republicans see a grim future. they do not want to be seen as anti-immigrant. by the way, this is a much more complicated, and once conversation. you could be morally opposed to legal immigration and still in favor for legal immigration.
everyone in washington is for illegal immigration. but people in the border states do not like it at all. i have complicated views of immigration but i certainly sympathize very much with people that live in south texas where the hospitals are overwhelmed. there is a ton of crime from this. there are good things about the illegal immigration, no doubt. be benefit in some ways but we pay for it in others. this is one of the very few examples, and issue where there is a bi-partisan conspiracy against a large segment of the population that is not into it at all. in the end there will be another form of amnesty. if you think that there is no
sanction against doing something, you are likely to do it. >> kevin, hello. caller: good morning. really nice to see your program. i am a first-time caller. i am living close to the detroit area, an area ravaged by years of liberal politicians. some of whom are currently in court. the thing i have noticed is the demonization of bp has been this big republican corp. when they have in fact been major contributors to the barack obama campaign. i just cannot understand why there is this demonization of all of the big corporations. i could understand the democrats can run big businesses as much as republicans can. >> you did not express an
opinion, you just expressed facts. bp did contribute more to barack politician. of course, obama one wall street, one obama -- one americans making $100,000 per year or more. these cliches are fleet -- increasingly untenable as factual matters. it is not so obvious as the republican party always being the party of big business. it is way more complicated than that. but you would not know it by reading your average newspapers. predicate on these incredibly outdated assumptions. your point about bp specifically, they were the most
liberal by far of the energy companies i am aware of. there is a richness to all of this that is not remarked upon enough. host: "the new york times" profile john mccain today. "nothing seems the same for john mccain, who has gone too seriously defending his senate seat at a hampton in -- hampton inn in arizona. withering criticism of his former position on immigration from his constituents." this battle that he is facing right now, what does it tell you about the mood in the country and arizona? guest: the nature of politics, winston churchill said in the
end of every political career is a failure. i think that that is right, actually. politics, like journalism, is not a business for old people. there is almost no graceful exit. you almost pray that you die from heart attack in the middle of a campaign speech because the alternatives are so grim. yet there is a disproportionate number of old people -- john mccain is pretty young by the standards of the senate. but is sad as someone who spent a year with him covering his first run for president who came to like him as a person, whether or not you agree with him or not he was energetic, interesting, propane, vulgar, great, excellent person to have dinner and hang out with. it is sad to see him begging for votes when he could be relaxing with his grandchildren and his nine houses.
almost all of them wind up doing it. i have a lot of theories as to why. but my basic theory is that your average 80-year-old senator running for reelection, they all sort of know that they will die if they retire. these are healthy people. they know that when they stop moving, like a shark, it is over. i think that they give something up and it is often their dignity. i am not attacking john mccain. i could not have more affection for him as a person. >> another detroit, michigan caller. frederick. host: doing well. go right ahead.
caller: president obama is not god. the technology was not there. they did not do their homework. they did not have their safety in order. as far as holding them up and getting money, they need to stop that measure. it keeps the bp stock from dropping. i am a veteran, i support veterans. getting out of afghanistan and a war is political suicide. not only for obama, but for america in general. it makes us less safe. that is the job of the president's, to keep us safe.
host: obama is not god? there is a word for that -- guest: obama is not god? there is a word for that. blasphemy. he has chosen not to fix the gulf coast to teach us a lesson. host: do you think that that is what the public expects? guest: no president has ever been worshipped by his staff and supporters to the extent of this president. ttat will hurt him in. as a separate and more general matter, people expect too much from their goverrment. i do not say this as a libertarian, although i am, i am saying that as a practical+ matter and an observation of reality. there are many things the government cannot do. some thinns are just beyonddits power.
beyond human power. people have a kind of childlike faith in the government to accomplish really everything. that is sweet and great but it is also was placed. host: rick, independent color. caller: i had a quick question with obama and the administration as being these seeming environmentalists. with a six month moratorium on deep water drilling, i was curious about a point that i had heard, that there was a $2 billion loan given to a patrol bus and they apparently dug much deeper. i was wondering if there were any holes in the claim and what your opinion is. guest: funny that you mentioned it, we have been working on this story for the past two days. to be completely blunt with you, i am not sure what the truth is.
the import export bank has given $2 billion in loan guarantees to a brazilian oil company in which george soros has invested $900 billion for offshore drilling innbrazil. i think that the parameters of the story are correct, it is the details we do not have yet. it might be more complicated than the sport -- and the story line we are familiar with. to be honest with you, i do not know yet. host: final question from twitter, where do you think this country is headed? guest: all i do not know. i thought that hillary clinton was going to be the democratic nominee. do not look to me for prognostication. i am often wrong. there is certainly a feeling that things are really off
track. debt is clearly the problem. in two years the national debt would be 100% of gdp. that is unsustainable. it is not a real country at that point. you cannot have that. it is a third world. clearly there are going to have to be radical adjustments. there are not enough rich people in the country to pay down the debt. it seems to me that we will have to trim our expenditures. social security and medicare particularly need to be dealt with. there's this increasingly socialist attitude that the government will be there for you end take care of you, hopefully it will be reexamined soon. the trend in the last 30 years in this country is to go away from risk.
smoking, seesaws, anything that hurts you is really bad. the result is that the country has gotten a lot less interesting. the flip side of risk is joy. i hope we are moving backwards from that, accepting risks as a part of life. we all die in the end and maybe we should accept that and live with a greater degree of courage and happiness. being a tiny bit more like israel, seems to me. host: thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: next we will talk about the policy impact of the shifting u.s. demographics with ajay chaudry. first an update from c-span radio. >> at 9:15 in washington president obama is expected to reveal details today of how the government will enforce the health over care law. an announcement that will focus on how insurance companies should treat consumers.
officials meet at the white house this morning with state insurance commissioners. the president is expected to attend part of the session with a public statement later. the british treasury chief said the public bbrrowing will be cut from the gross domestic product to 1% within five years, including a freeze on financial support to the claim. george osborn says that queen elizabeth has a set with a freeze on financial support and that the government will impose a two-year wage freeze on most civil servants. the israeli naval blockade of the gaza strip could face a test next week. the country will send eight ships the gaza with 1,100 tons of relief supplies. finally, a group of seventh graders in california has discovered a cave on mars. the 16 students from the
evergreen middle school are participating in the mars student imaging program at the mars space flight facility at arizona state university, allowing students to frame research question and commission cameras to take images answer the questions. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> if you cannot mmke up your mind based on what you have read, what you have heard and your questions and answers, you do not deserve to be a part of the senate judiciary committee. >> take a look back at the speeches and previous confirmation hearings of supreme court judges. the c-span video library, online with every program since 1987. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: ajay chaudry, thank you so much for being with us. we wanted to talk about the shifting demographics of the united states and what it means for policy and sociologically in general. "usa today" had a story about diversity growth and minority dwindles. "record levels of birth are moving the u.s. a one step closer to a demographic miles down in which no group commands a majority according to a new census estimate. guest: there have been major demographic changes in u.s.. one has been in the general aging of the u.s. population. no. 2 is a large increase in immigration over the last 25 years. many of the immigrants tended to be younger than the u.s.
population. then there are the changes in child rearing. u.s.-born women may have had fewer children over time. all this adds up to a relative increase in the minority non- white population. so, as you said, on the 11th of june the census released figures, almost 49% of new births in 12 months were non- white minority births. that has been a gradual trend. we can probably expect that within the next couple of years children will be borne and there will be no majority group represented amongst those children. one of the things that this brings up, it is the tale of
different generational makeup of the population. you have the elderly where over 1% of the population remains white. the very young population of children are less than 60% white. did you are seeing a gradual transformation of the country as generations shift. you can almost think of the over 65 population as resembling united states in 1970 and the new warrants representing the united states of 2030 and we are somewhere in between. host: we are talking about shifting demographics in the united states with ajay chaudry. numbers to call, for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. we are focusing on legal immigrants and the changing face
of america, what it means this thickly. -- statistically. "the wall street journal" reported that minority birth will soon eclipsed the births of whites of european ancestry. the question is when according to kenneth johnson, senior demographer at the k.c. institute at the university of new hampshire. he guesses the milestone will be crossed as soon as 2011." when we are having children, life expectancy, what does it all mean if it changes over as early as 2011? guest: it means that to our children are is changing somewhat. many of the children of the next generation are children of immigrants.
many of those are coming from families where english is not the first language spoken. some of them come from populations where the copy rate is higher. schooling will likely be a very big factorrin the next 25 years looking at what the country will become. we need an educational system that will integrate and develop these children in a way that will benefit the country. they will be the future of the country and there is no reason to expect that they will not contribute to the growth of the country. in many ways it is an opportunity. absent the growth of this population it would be relatively flat.
a decline in the working age population in future years relative to the population supported by the working age, young children to provide potential benefits if they are well educated and an integrated. host: how do you define this word, minority? guest: for so many years one of the aspects of this shift in the country was where was occurring. places in the country that did not have a great deal of diversity that had been in a majority white, or largely of two races, they are seeing large influxes of latino immigrants.
minorities also include a lot of children from multiracial families. the percentage of children born, one of which could be european american, white, has also increased significantly. it has changed with people defined as minority. the question comes when you do not have majority populations, the largest groups are still recommended for a long time to come, even if they are not a majority. what does it mean? for large part of the country diversity was about race relations and now it is about the multi-ethnic culture of the nation. in those things there are still divides between the population
and others, this reach of poverty and language population. host: the census defines minorities as non-white. such a huge number of people. could be any an immigrant. guest: yes, all multi-nation all families -- multinational families that are not all white are included. caller: hispanics are classified as caucasians. there are white. when you factor out the white people, you go down to 65. this year in the sense as we heard that in california the census bureau was giving out funds to arabs that said the
vote flight, you ain't white -- there is this push to convince everyone that there are so many different minority groups there is no point of stopping anything with immigration. if we end birthright citizenship, which we will do, which is a bizarre interpretation of the 14th amendment, and if we secure the border, which we will, and if we quit letting one to 3 million people into this country illegally and we start doing like canada, australia, and england, when we start choosing the people that we want, we are a nation of immigrants, but we
came here illegally. the people that came here illegally are welcome. they are afforded every right of citizenship except the right to vote. host: we are really focusing more on legal immigrants and have the demographics in the united states are changing. guest: the caller does mmke a good point about how the census tracks the population. latinos can be quite or african- american as well. we are not saying that the majority population, when you include white hispanics the population is somewhere between 20% and 75%. this is the definition that
says the people of direct european ancestry, the population shifting down words. host: another call from florida. democratic line. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. i would just like -- am i on now? most of you are. caller: be illegal immigrants coming into this country are taking jobs from legal people and i think this is wrong. the government that is supposed to be a government of laws does not follow their own laws. i think it is a total disgrace. they call this a democracy and it is far from a democracy. it is a republic represented in government that represents the
people. guest: all that i can help with is to maybe put these numbers in perspective. right now 39 million of the 300 million people in the united states are foreign born immigrants. estimated that 11 million to 12 million are undocumented. i think that what these stories are really about is the cutting edge of the demographic change. this is all within the united states. this is the issue. what is leading the change and what needs to be much more the focus are the children of immigrants. most of them, many of them are children of legal immigrants.
in the united states even the children of undocumented immigrants are, themselves, u.s. citizens. they really are the greatest resource for this country in terms of their potential economic growth and the opportunities that they present if they are well educated. school districts contending with english as a second language and many different languages being spoken as a student coming in? guest: schools are the place where this is the most directly felt. even if we as adults do not necessarily travel in these circles, a good teacher cannot avoid it. it is occurring all over the united states in europe -- areas that did not have large immigration in the past.
places like charlotte, north carolina, atlanta, georgiaa places where there are large latino populations moving in and as many as one-quarter of the school children come to school with english not being their primary language. a huge difference between the child population and the adult population, they are not prepared in terms of teachers. one of the places where we would see a shift are those new growth areas where we are not prepared. there are many examples of places doing really good job of building up their educational systems to support their changing demographics. but in some places we are talking about populations that may have been shrinking. in many cases as much as the
growth has been the children of immigrants. host: "young hispanic immigrants have birth rates higher than those of non-spanish whites creating a widening wage gap with more than 500 counties that have a majority of minority children. the population is changing from the bottom-up. 48.3% of kids under the age of five are minorities while 19.9% of people 65 and older are. this really started in 1960, when 80% of the population was of european descent. as we move forward, as those children age of words, the
demographics are changing. host: robert, republican line, florida. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. caller: earlier you said that the legal population is not the culprit of the faster growing population coming from their children, you said something a lot the along the lines of naturally when their children are born their children will become immediate citizens of this country. you have laws on immigration because you have hispanic officials making the laws. people landed in this country are immediately granted amnesty. we might as well give him a
social security number and a driver's license, the whole line yards. i do not understand why we, as people, are allowed to view other people in such a less equal way. host: as the caller said, we are in the middle of a large immigration debate. -- guest: assthe caller said, we are in the middle of a large immigration debate. the children of immigrants, this trend that is important, it is large. children of immigrants are now one-quarter of the population. 96% of those children of immigrants are u.s.-born and the
children are legal. guest: we have some of these statistics looking at the numbers of minorities and the percentage of children under age 5, but also from the census bureau -- host: we have some of these statistics looking at the numbers of minorities and the percentage of children under age 5. you have mentioned that we are also seeing not just a hub experience what it is like to have immigrants in your community, the cultural influence coming in. tell us about that. guest: places like new york, chicago, they have been experiencing that for a long time.
their school systems, their policies systems or all well integrated. as well as you can expect. what really started to occur over the last two decades has been a gradual spreading out of the growth in diversity of the u.s. population. the largest increases from 1990 to the present have been in the southeast and southwest united states. places like north carolina, mecklenburg, n.c. when from 70% of births being -- went from 70% of births being white in the 1990's to less than 40% now. you are seeing huge shifts within one generation. that is where you see some of these tensions. where the growth has been rapid.
in general, as you mentioned, this country has for a long time been a country of immigrants with the foreign-born population has become well integrated. i think it where we are really seeing the difference is how widespread it has become. like i said, the demographic shift, no one is surprised by it. what is becoming surprising is how widespread it has become. host: in "the wall street journal" they talk about mecklenburg, n.c. as you were speaking of it. there is a statue of mahatma condi -- john d. -- ghandi. "in 1997 the 0.3% of the county
is white, to date is 54.6% and the young as whites are a minority amongst their peers -- youngest whites are a minority amongst their peers." guest: places like charrotte, atlanta, miami, places with real economic growth in the 1990's prior to the recession, also the areas that saw the largest increase in diversity and the foreign population. in many ways a large wave of immigration in the 1990's was very much responsive to demand. there was a need for more workers. no one knows what will happen in the demographic shifts after the recession as the recovery takes form in different parts of the country. we will continue to see some shifting. some of the articles talk about
this demographic shift slowing down as birth rates for the entire population declined. host: los angeles, california, democratic line, chris. caller: good morning. i was watching television in 2008 and they were saying that -- they were talking about the births in 2007. this came from the census bureau. they said that 18% of all births in america in 2007 were white. 19% were black. 4% were asian and native american. 49% for hispanics. i find it strange that that number really has not changed now that it is 2009 the they are talking about.
it is still almost half of the births in america being 50%. i find that alarming. guest: i am not sure of the figures that he is talking about. it may be birth rates for the state of california. which is what the states where this demographic shift has occurred most rapidly. host: earlier you talk about the potential market for industry bringing in immigrants. are we seeing a community is getting more immigrants and first generation, a second- generation americans coming in, are they seeing an increase in their economy, an improvement in their economy based on this population? does that make sense?
guest: emigrants' flow into the u.s., very suspect to economic growth. the largest increase in immigration was in the 1990's in part as a response to the booming economy. as we have seen, immigration from mexico has declined with the the recession. in some ways it is very responsive. immigrants can be very mobile labor. they will go to places where there is work. immigrants do not tend to come and work in industries that require labor but also move them, bringing new industries and labor with them. host: columbia, south carolina.
caller: interesting discussion. do you think that there's a chance that within the next 20 to 30 years, if white people become minority in this country, will we actually have a cultural backlash against white people for the injustices they have done to the other races through the centuries? what do you think of the social impact of something like that? guest: i do not think that something like that would happen. the country has always been very good at integrating populations. in some ways is a bending and reshaping of the country. if you look at these second- generation emigrants and their outcomes, they tend to look much
more like the majority population of the u.s. in terms of educational outcomes and level of achievement. in terms of a larger, national phenomenon, obviously there will be parts of the company -- parts of the country with growing pains. there may be concerned about job growth and equity growth. host: our guest is ajay chaudry, the director at the urban institute of the director of labor and human services and population. raleigh, north carolina, republican line, perry. caller: i wanted to ask your opinion, or at least acknowledgement of the canadian free press article. they stated that we allow about
180,000 the legal u.s. residents -- illegal u.s. residents per month for residency but the economy only produces about 9000 jobs per month. they say that 12% of the population are legal immigrants with 15% of the jobs. i am curious if you know the accuracy of those statistics. my opinion, i have seen the no child left behind act as an advertising campaign to bring hispanics into the country to keep them from having a negative connotation in the perception of the public.
guest: i do not know about the last comment. host: i do not know what the caller was talking about either. no child left behind was misstated by president bush. guest: i think that what he is may be referring to are the number of people processed through immigration. we do have a significant legal immigration flow. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have a few quick points to
make. i heard some of the most ludicrous things this morning in reference to this topic. one, there is no such thing as hispanic. there just might enough to pass for white. laura bush was a full blooded mexican. you wonder why the borders were not closed. did you forget california and texas belonged to mexico? murder and theft does not make you legal. host: one of her points is that native americans were here first. when we talk about minorities we are talking about african americans and that the u.s. census term as a broad term. guest: it is important not to
confound immigrants and minorities, which is interesting because for so long in america we unfounded african-americans and minorities. -- confounded african-americans and minorities. people that did not identify as being of multiple races. guest: when you talk about the definition as hispanic, this is widely accepted? guest: if someone considered themselves in that way thhy would indicated as such. guest: i do not understand why people keep calling them immigrants, they are criminals that come across the border.
i think that our politicians, your guest, everyone is blurring the picture about the definition. as a veteran in this country i am insulted that our leaders are allowing this to happen. guest: -- host: to be clear, we are talking about demographic shifts. ajay chaudry is not a policy maker. what we really want to focus on is how the shifting demographics in this country might change. you talk about this idea of white people aging more and becoming more dependent on minorities as they get older. taking care of things like medicare, social security, things like that.
guest: it is hard to say what the economic impact of these demographic shifts will be in the long term. but one scenario is that the influx of the children of immigrants is actually adding to the base of workers for the future that can contribute to the other big change in the united states, the aging of the population of baby boomers leading to much greater public benefits in the form of social security and medicare, potentially meaning in larger base of workforce. absent that it provides a competitive advantage for the united states as well. these industrialized nations without the history of immigration, populations with
birth rates above the reproduction level and the placement level, they have seen their population is declining over time, which is not a recipe for competitiveness. there are differing views of that. we know that the child population in the u.s. would be stagnant were it not for the influx of adults of child- bearing age or bearing children. host to washington, d.c.. hello. caller: so many of these foreign countries are developing middle- class is now. why do we still have so many
immigrants from those countries? would they not have adequate opportunities at home? human rights, women's rights in those countries are still much worse than what they think it would have here? can you comment on that? guest: in terms of the strong growing economies in asia, the interesting thing about the immigrant population is that it varies a lot. many of the chinese and indian immigrants from other industrializing countries are the best educated of those countries, often coming here underwork migration or family reunification. also, there are many that come
here for their education. they come here for graduate school and remain, working and contributing to the u.s. economy. in some ways it is a very well- educated population. several decades have been coming from china, india, and our competitors. guest: linda, good morning. caller: i lived in washington, d.c., sending my child to the international school. many international people did become wonderful citizens of their country. when they went back to their country they were ambassadors for our country. i want to emphasize the importance of education. our education system is
wonderful. many of the immigrants come here because of that. thank you. guest: i would agree with that this caller. the educational opportunities in the u.s. are potentially a big drawing force for families, especially immigrants coming from countries where educational opportunities are not as open. if they are trying to develop mobility across generations for their children, that is part of the contribution of the reasons for coming to the united states. the other subjects a caller brings up is that education has traditionally been a large, integrating force in the u.s., over time making them americans, contributors, u.s. workers, in some ways socializing them in the culture of the united states, providing opportunities. even amongst children in the
second generation who have parents from countries where they did not have high educational achievement, over the generations they have seen more than their direct ancestors because of the opportunity provided by the system. postal logansport, indiana. brian, independent line. -- host: logansport, indiana. brian, independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. you are the people proving you care about the country when you call in. to those people that say that illegal immigration has not affected our economy, i will give you an example. i lived in a town with plans to use to employee americans until it shut down for a few years in the 1990's.
whenever another company reopened that there was a lot of immigrants from other places around the country. my hand and my cousins work in a chicken factory in arkansas that was loaded with illegal immigrants. these people that have these jobs, it has been reported on the news that they send back home to mexico and farther south of the border, billions of dollars that could be spent america had these jobs that they say americans do not want. host: we will leave it there that. guest: the caller has raised
what the source in geographic immigration has been. meat-packing is one of them, an industry that has employed a great deal of immigrants over the years, by all accounts undocumented immigrants, in part because they have decided to turn to that source of labor because it is low-wage labor and the employer claims they could not turn a profit at prevailing wages amongst immigrants. it is one of the issues we must confront. how do we make sure that labor markets are fair and that we are not exploiting the low-wage labor of foreigners. host: for lauderdale, florida.
caller: i know that many people were kidnapped from their country, coming to this country picking strawberries, blueberries. we were kidnapped from our country and we came here. we came here as the illegal aliens from africa to do the same work now. criminals came from europe as well. we were kidnapped from our countries and we came here. guest: the caller brings us the historical aspect of this, our history is complex.
the current polarization of this debate that we see across the country is not new. this occurred when other groups that their time were considered minorities that came when southern europeans came to the u.s.. what we are seeing is the growing tension, of course, african-americans were forced immigrants in the country, which has also been a large historical issue in the country. i think that the caller is right. there is a historical aspect of this. i think it one of the things contributing to the current tension is that immigrants by and large numbers have started to appear in parts of the country where they were not as
prevalent in the past. host: mike, new york, new york, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i lived in new york city. i have the privilege of attending some of the ration rallies in union square. -- some of the immigration rallies in union square. americans are not anti- immigration, we are anti-a legal immigration. every rally i have ever gone to+ they never distinguish them. it is either immigration all the way or you are a racist if you do not go with it. understand? i do not know why the media does not separate them. we are anti-illegal immigration. we are anti-illegal immigration.